In re Marriage of Luttkus.
2026 COA 23. No. 23CA2048. Dissolution of Marriage—Permanent Orders—Spousal Maintenance—Child Support—Services for Persons With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities—Home and Community-Based Services Waiver for Persons With Developmental Disabilities.
April 2, 2026
The trial court dissolved the parties’ marriage. It entered permanent orders that divided the marital estate, awarded wife maintenance, and ordered child support to wife for the parties’ adult disabled daughter, L.L. When determining maintenance and child support, the court included wife’s $5,000 per month difficulty of care payments that she receives through the Home and Community-Based Services Waiver for Persons with Developmental Disabilities (HCBS-DD waiver) program.
On appeal, wife contended that the trial court erred by using the deferred distribution method to allocate husband’s pension. Here, however, the court exercised its discretion to choose a distribution method to best fit the parties’ needs and financial circumstances. The court appeared to prioritize accuracy, and thus fairness, by avoiding potentially flawed assumptions. And wife did not identify anything in the record to show that the court’s use of the deferred distribution method was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Wife also argued that the trial court erred by including the difficulty of care payments in determining her income for purposes of calculating spousal maintenance and child support. Husband maintained that these payments compensate wife for working as L.L.’s caregiver, just as they would compensate any third party caring for L.L., so such compensation is includable in wife’s income. The HCBS-DD waiver provides home- and community-based services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities who need the level of care available in an intermediate care facility. Here, the record did not show that the difficulty of care payments covered the actual costs of L.L.’s caregiver needs. Further, the payments did not adequately compensate wife for her work with L.L. or acknowledge the amount of work she provided caring for L.L. Accordingly, the difficulty of care payments were neither compensation to wife nor income attributable to L.L. that would diminish her basic needs for purposes of determining child support. Further, the HCBS-DD waiver payments are akin to payment programs such as adoption subsidies and foster care payments, which aren’t included in a parent’s income. The court of appeals thus concluded that the difficulty of care payments didn’t constitute income for purposes of determining maintenance or child support.
The portion of the permanent orders that allocated husband’s pension by using the deferred distribution method was affirmed. The portion of the orders concerning maintenance and child support was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.